SynthesisBone & joint open2026
Automated impaction in uncemented total hip arthroplasty : a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Bone & joint open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (IPFs) are a serious complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA), typically attributed to surgical technique. Manual impaction provides tactile feedback but varies with surgeon fatigue and experience. Automated impaction systems offer consistent energy delivery, potentially improving safety and efficiency. This study aimed, through a systematic review and meta-analysis, to compare the risk of IPF and operating times between automated and manual impaction during primary uncemented THA. Methods: We performed a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of primary uncemented THA studies comparing automated and manual impaction techniques. Outcomes included IPFs and operating time. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for IPF risk, and differences in mean operating time between techniques were analyzed using mean differences with 95% CIs. Results: Comparative data were available from five studies (n = 2,607 THAs). Meta-analysis included three studies (n = 2,377), with 1,408 hips in the automated group (14 IPFs) and 969 hips in the manual group (three IPFs). There was no significant difference in IPF risk between techniques (pooled OR 1.29; 95% CI 0.52 to 3.21; p = 0.59). Operating time was reported in three studies. The pooled mean difference suggested a shorter operating time with automated impaction (-1.34 minutes; 95% CI -15.60 to 12.92; p = 0.72). Conclusion: Automated impaction was not associated with a lower risk of IPF or operating time compared with manual techniques in primary uncemented THA. Fracture risk and efficiency may instead depend on femoral component-femur compatibility and implant sizing. Further randomized studies incorporating diverse femoral component designs and automated impaction systems, alongside formal economic evaluation, are required.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.